Jump to content

Talk:Friedrich Nietzsche/Archive 11

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5←Archive 9Archive 10Archive 11Archive 12Archive 13→Archive 15

Summary of nationality issues

Points of agreement:

  • Nietzsche originated in a German-speaking milieu
  • Nietzsche wrote his oeuvre in the German language

Potential points of difference:

  • Whether we should mention nationality in the introductory paragraph. (I contend that highlighting nationality in this way in the case of Nietzsche would potentially confuse culture with citizenship.)
    • The extent to which WP:MOSBIO prescribes giving a nationality. (I view WP:MOSBIO as a guideline rather than as a prescription, which lists what an opening paragraph "should" (rather than "must") have. The alternative view expects a nationality; I have given numerous examples of articles which do not conform to this ideal.)
    • Whether to present Nietzsche's nationality as "Prussian" or as "stateless". (WP:MOSBIO suggests: "In the normal case this will mean the country of which the person is a citizen or national, or was a citizen when the person became notable." Nietzsche's case ill-fits this norm; he changed from "Prussian" to "stateless" in 1869, before he achieved notability.)
  • Whether to mention ethnicity in the introductory paragraph. (I see no need to highlight Nietsche's German ethnicity in this way, and have seen no argments in favor of doing so.)
    • The extent to which WP:MOSBIO proscribes mentioning ethnicity. ([[WP:MOSBIO] states: "Ethnicity should generally not be emphasized in the opening unless it is relevant to the subject's notability." Do we have such a relevance?)
  • Whether Nietzsche operated in his heyday as part of an identifiable tradition of 'German philosophy". (This topic has scope for subjective argument, but I've not seen the case made on our talk-page. Nietzsche seems to derive more from the Greek tradition than the German, but note the apparent need to rehabilitate his German background: see Nicholas Martin (ed), Nietzsche and the German Tradition (Oxford; Peter Lang, 2003) -- especially the Preface.

I invite pertinent discussion of these and any other relevant topics on this Talk-page. Otherwise I propose, once again, that we remove any misleading/simplistic "German" tag from the opening paragraph and add relevant material to the "Biography" section, conveying the fatcs:

Nietzsche had [[Saxony | Saxon]] ancestry, [[Prussia]]n birth, a Polish self-image,<ref> See [[Radwan coat of arms]] for a discussion of Nietzsche's self-perception as a Pole.</ref>[[Switzerland | Swiss]] residence, declared statelessness and an international intellectual outlook/influence: he never held citizenship of the [[German Empire]].<br><br>At the time of his appointment to Basel, Nietzsche applied for the annullment of his Prussian citizenship<ref>''Er beantragte also bei der preussischen Behoerde seine Expatrierung'' [Translation:] "He accordingly applied to the Prussian authorities for expatrification". Curt Paul Janz: ''Friedrich Nietzsche: Biographie'' volume 1. Munich: Carl Hanser, 1978, page 263.</ref> The official response came in a document dated [[17 April]] 1869.<ref>German text available as ''Entlassungsurkunde fuer den Professor Friedrich Wilhelm Nietzsche aus Naumburg'' in Giorgio Colli and Mazzino Montinari: ''Nietzsche Briefwechsel: Kritische Gesamtausgabe''. Part I, Volume 4. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1993. ISBN 3 11 012277 4, page 566.</ref> Janz comments:<blockquote>Von diesem Tage an war Nietzsche also staatsrechtlich kein Preusse und kein Deutscher mehr, sondern ... staatenlos, oder, wie der Terminus damals in der Schweiz lautetet, heimatlos, was auf Nietzsche besonders zutrifft, und er blieb es... Er wurde und blieb <i>Europaeer</i>. [Translation:] So from this day onwards Nietzsche, in terms of international law, was no longer a prussian and no longer a German, but ... stateless, or in the terminology used in Switzerland at that time, "homeland-less", which was particularly appropriate for Nietzsche; and he remained so... He became and remained a ''European''[italics in original].<ref>Curt Paul Janz: ''Friedrich Nietzsche: Biographie'' volume 1. Munich: Carl Hanser, 1978, pages 263 - 264</ref> </blockquote>

-- Pedant17 (talk) 01:09, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree that a widespread habit exists of classifying Nietzsche as a "German philosopher" and indeed as a "German". But we need to determine here whether that common perception has sufficient accuracy and weight to merit a mention in our lead sentence -- as opposed to elsewhere -- in the Wikipedia article. If we had to mention a single nationality (and we don't need to) we would have to say "Prussian". -- Thanks for addressing the place of Nietzsche in the German philosophic tradition. Certainly Kant and Schopenhauer had influence on Nietzsche -- but as the article makes clear, he turned against both. We could classify British-nationality philosophers in the Kantian mould as "in the German tradition" -- more so than Nietzsche. Any phrasing as slick as "German philosopher" does not do Nietzsche justice. -- We have discussed previously (see above) the labelling of other "German philosophers ... identified as such in their biographies." That approach assumes in advance that we classify Nietzsche as a "German philosopher" or by some such nationalistic/school-label, and fails to take into account the changing nature of German nationality in Nietzsche's own time and in his individual case. Once again, and as mentioned previously, Wikipedia does not label Karl Marx in his lead section as either a "German" or as a "German philosopher". -- Pedant17 (talk) 00:48, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
  • 2¢: If Neitzsche were identified here as other than a "German" philosopher, Wikipedia would have the dubious distinction of being the only tertiary reference source to do so. Although I am all for pioneering new ground if necessary, this is not an issue that warrants any effort in that direction. Let's end this ultimatley value-less hair-splitting and move all this energy elsewhere, i.e. one of the many articles requiring much-needed work. Alcmaeonid (talk) 15:56, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
But see above for a couple of reference works which discuss Nietzsche without apparently feeling the need for nationality-labeling: Edward Craid (editor): The Shorter Routledge Encyclopedia of philosophy. Abingdon: Routledge, 2005, pages 726-741; and Simon Blackburn: The Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005, pages 252-253. Perhaps the editors and writers of those tomes simply forgot to highlight Germanness. Perhaps they considered it unimportant. Perhaps they swim with some new paradigm which disregards neat nationalistic labels... -- Pedant17 (talk) 00:48, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

More Texts that call Nietzsche "German": This should settle the issue

Sorry for the long post. Let me first say, that I agree with user User: Alcmaeonid that the energy being put into this debate would best be spent elsewhere. However, I think it is also important that we clear up this issue. The following material should leave no doubt that the "German" label is not only appropriate, but standard and supported by professional philosophical literature.

  • Firstly, I don't think anyone here is arguing that it would be inappropriate to discuss the fine points of Nietzsche's national identity and his complex relationship with (to use Pedant17's word) “Germanness”. In fact it seems to me entirely appropriate given that fact that he renounced his German citizenship and (to quote the article from the Stanford Encyclopedia) “led wandering, gypsy-like existence as a stateless person.” This fact is not only an important biographical detail, it also might inform the way we read certain passages of Nietzsche's work. The last time I checked, there is a section about this point in the current version of the article. I suggest Pedant17 and anyone else who is concerned with this issue work to improve that section of the article.
I agree wholeheartedly, and wish to thank the Wikipedians who collaborated with me in refining the material in the section Friedrich Nietzsche#Note on citizenship, nationality and ethnicity. -- Pedant17 (talk) 02:45, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
  • The section is useful. I think it would be best, however, if we find English Language sources for the section on Nietzsche's nationality. There is nothing intrinsically wrong with translated sources, however, I don't see a reason to use them when there are plenty of English Language sources that discuss Nietzsche's change in citizenship, etc. Since these sources will be more accessible to the users who are most likely to use the English Wikipedia, it seems best to use them if possible. Take a look at the article from the Standford Encyclopedia for starters. The article What Was Nietzsche’s Nationality? by Daniel Blue (The Journal of Nietzsche Studies - Issue 31, Spring 2007, pp. 73-82) might also be helpful. (Users who have access to Project Muse, click here)Fixer1234 (talk) 03:45, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
When available, the English-language Wikipedia prefers English-language sources. Though it seems unlikely that the Prussian authorities would issue an English-language document. Note too that German-language sources may have a better local feel for the multiple distinctions of citizenship and birth within the various German states in the 19th century. -- Pedant17 (talk) 04:51, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Now on to the texts: Pedant17 writes that The Shorter Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy does not feel “the need for nationality-labeling”. I assume he is referring to the fact that SREP does not refer to Nietzsche as a “German Philosopher" in the lead of its article about the man. However, in the biographical section it does say: “'Nietzsche was offered free admission to Pforta, the most famous school in Germany” (728). Pforta is in the area that was Prussia. The SREP also says that Nietzsche's “last seven books mark a high point of German prose style” (728). Pendant has argued, "If we had to mention a single nationality (and we don't need to) we would have to say Prussian." Clearly, given the quotes above, the editors of SREP feel that "German" and "Germany" are adequate.
The Shorter Routledge refers in these passages to Germany as a "geographical expression" and to the German language; whereas our primary problem consists in dealing with the somewhat different question of nationality (per WP:MOSBIO). That guideline currently states: "In the normal case this will mean the country of which the person is a citizen or national, or was a citizen when the person became notable." One does not necessarily classify as a German by attending a German school (compare Queen Sofía of Spain), nor yet by writing in the German language (many Austrians and not a few Swiss would maintain the contrary). On this evidence, the Shorter Routledge maintains its neutrality/silence in the matter of Nietzsche's nationality. -- Pedant17 (talk) 02:45, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Granted--Germany is a Geographical expression, and "German" here refers to a language that is the primary language for both the Austrians and the Swiss. However, I think the fact that SREP refers to Pforta as being in Germany rather than Prussia dispels any notion that we should call Nietzsche "Prussian".Fixer1234 (talk) 03:20, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
Pforta at the time of Nietzsche's attendance lay in Prussian territory: see Pforta#Boarding School. The Holy Roman Empire of the German Nation had long gone (1806), and the German Empire had yet to materialize (1871). "Germany" in this context means about as much as "Central Europe". One cannot talk of a specific German citizenship prior to 1871. And citizenship remains the issue here, per the Wikipedia Manual of Style -- not where someone went to school. -- Pedant17 (talk) 04:51, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
  • The Concise Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy also makes it clear that we should have no problem thinking about Nietzsche as a member of the German tradition and calling him German.
  • In the Article “EXISTENTIALIST THEOLOGY”; “The entire movement has been strongly influenced, directly or indirectly, by the nineteenth-century Danish philosopher-theologian Søren Kierkegaard, while the works of the Russian novelist Fëdor Dostoevskii and the German philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche, both from the late nineteenth century, have also been important.”
Just another throw-away case of the standardly ambiguous phrase "German philosopher". Does it mean "German-national philosopher" or "philosopher in the German tradition"? Can we tell in this case? Can we avoid/resolve the ambiguity in our own encyclopedia? -- Pedant17 (talk) 02:45, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
  • The Article “EMERSON, RALPH WALDO (1803–82), says,"He [Emerson] influenced the German philosophical tradition through Nietzsche – whose The Gay Science carries an epigraph from ‘History’ – and the Anglo-American tradition via William James and John Dewey.”
It doesn't help us particulary to note that Nieztsche played an intermediary role in influencing "the German philosophical tradition". He also influenced the French tradition and the American tradition... -- that doesn't prove that we should call him an American philosopher... -- Pedant17 (talk) 02:45, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
As stated above on 2007-08-25 (perhaps with some degree of understatement): "I realize that one could readily find a quotation justifying the phrase "German philosopher". That still leaves the problem: do we highlight this ambiguous commonplace in our lead sentence? I have to ask: why does the article currently label Nietzsche as a "German philosopher" in the lead sentence without supporting material: without discussing "German philosophy" and Nieztsche's place in it within the body of the article? Do we have an imbalance here at the moment? As I also stated above on 2007-08-25, "I have no objection to seeing Nietzsche described as a "German philosopher" within the article". Working on that theme in the article might clarify at least part of our issue. -- Pedant17 (talk) 02:45, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Pedant seems to feel it is not appropriate to call Nietzsche German in the lead of the article. He writes: "But we need to determine here whether that common perception has sufficient accuracy and weight to merit a mention in our lead sentence -- as opposed to elsewhere -- in the Wikipedia article." Nietzsche: A Very Short Introduction, a 120 page book about Nietzsche, refers to the philosopher as German in its lead. Roger Scruton, Christopher Janaway, Keith Thomas and the other editors and contributors to German Philosophers: Kant, Hegel, Schopenhauer, Nietzsche refer to Nietzsche as German in the lead of the article about him in the book. (See here). PAGE ONE of The Cambridge Companion to Nietzsche reads: "The importance to the humanities and to our culture of the nineteenth-century German philosopher and writer Friedrich Nietzsche...". Given these examples, I would say the "common perception" that Nietzsche is German "has sufficient accuracy and weight" to be mentioned in the lead sentence.
That "common perception" certainly exists -- and remains as ambiguous as ever. Wikipedia can do better -- at the very least by stripping out the categories of nationality and of philosophical school and treating them separately. -- Pedant17 (talk) 02:45, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Pedant17 has characterized the phrase "German philosopher" as "slick". He has said it "does not do Nietzsche justice." He has spoken of "simplistic controversial nationalistic/ethnic/cultural references." He has suggested some editors find the German label unimportant, and speculated that "they swim with some new paradigm which disregards neat nationalistic labels." In response, I says this: If scholars like Bernd Magnus and Kathleen Marie Higgins do not find the phrase "German philosopher and writer Friedrich Nietzsche" to be problematic, and if they along with their colleagues Michael Tanner and Roger Scruton feel it is helpful to begin material about Nietzsche by introducing him as "German"...well...I think there are very few Wikipeida editors who are qualified to argue. Even if Pedant17 happened to be a Nietzsche scholar, it would seem his resistance of the German label is a minority view.
Definitely a minority view, but nevertheless a valid minority view with some circumstantial support in the literature and some common sense behind it. To that extent we can take it into account and craft our article -- and perhaps even its lead -- accordingly. -- Pedant17 (talk) 02:45, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
  • To sum up: The literature clearly supports classifying Nietzsche as a "German philosopher." There are also many fine publications that do so in the "lead" text. We could talk about nationality until we are blue in the face. I'm not even sure "German", in this case, is a national label. Rather, it is a classification. And, as the links above clearly show, professional philosophers classify Nietzsche as a German Philosopher. Since we do not do original research here, we should follow suit.Fixer1234 (talk) 06:51, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
You have put your finger on the ambiguity of "national label" vs "classification". We have more work to do in teasing out and discussing the Germanness of Nietzsche's philosophy: evidently a (sub)topic worthy of consideration (note my reference to Nicholas Martin (ed), Nietzsche and the German Tradition (Oxford; Peter Lang, 2003) above. In the meantime, as our article discusses Nietzsche the man as well as Nietzsche the philosopher and Nietzsche the philologist, we can avoid the pitfalls of the simplistic "German philosopher" label in our lead. Piling up citations cannot resolve the underlying logical issues involved when we span "professional" disciplines. -- Pedant17 (talk) 02:45, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia Sites that Call Nietzsche a German

Since there is some dispute over how WP:MOSBIO is to be interpreted in Nietzsche's case, here are how some of the other Wikipedia sites characterize him. (No, I don't speak all these languages: I could just parse whether they called Nietzsche a German philosopher or not, frequently by clicking on a link and finding a map of Germany on the resulting page). Afrikaans: was 'n Duitse filosoof en filoloog. Alemannic German: ischen dütsche Filosof u klassische Filolog gsi. Azerbaijani: alman filosofu və klassik filoloq. Breton: Ur prederour alaman eo. Bosnian bio je njemački filozof, filolog i psiholog. Catalan: filòsof alemany. Czech: byl německý filozof a klasický filolog. Welsh: Athronydd ac ieithegwr o Almaenwr. Danish: tysk filosof. German: war ein deutscher Philosoph, Dichter und klassischer Philologe. Greek: ήταν σημαντικός Γερμανός φιλόσοφος και φιλόλογος. Spanish: filólogo clásico, filósofo y poeta alemán. West Frisian: is in ferneamd Dútsk filosoof en filolooch. Irish: Fealsamh Gearmánach. Galician: foi un influente filósofo alemán. Hebrew: פילוסוף גרמני. Italian: è stato un filosofo e scrittore tedesco. Latvian: bija vācu filozofs, filologs un psihologs. Lithuanian: vokiečių filosofas. Dutch: Duitse filosoof en filoloog. Norwegian: var en tysk filosof. Polish: filozof, filolog klasyczny i pisarz tworzący w języku niemieckim. Portuguese: foi um influente filósofo alemão. Romanian: filozofi germani. Swedish: var en tysk filosof, författare och klassisk filolog. Turkish: Alman filozof.

To be fair, the French call him a Prussian.[1] The Latin site does not mention his place of birth or nationality.[2] The scales seem tipped, however. RJC Talk Contribs 16:34, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I applaud the French Wikipedia and the Latin Wikipedia -- they show us different potential ways out of our impasse. Add to them the Polish Wikipedia: its phrase "filozof, filolog klasyczny i pisarz tworzący w języku niemieckim" translates as something like "a philosopher, classical philologist and writer using/writing/creating in the German language". And then we have the Piedmontese Wikipedia which states: "A l'é stàit un dij pi important filòsof del sècol ch'a fa XIX" (... one of the most important philosophers of the 19th century...) with no hint of nationality. -- But of course, these merely furnish indicative examples: references to Wikipedia[s] do not count as definitive per the WP:SPS section of WP:VERIFY. Popularity-contests based on assertions or on quotations potentially out of context play a much lesser role in contructing Wikipedia than do reasoned arguments. -- Pedant17 (talk) 02:45, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

An Attempt to Resolve the "Nationality"\"German Philosopher" Issue

I would like to see this issue resolved. This is my attempt to summarize the situation and propose a solution. Please do not intersperse text with these 7 points. Rather, I request that you comment following the final point.Fixer1234 (talk) 06:23, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

  • 1. Pedant17 is correct to suggest that Nietzsche's nationality, Nietzsche's “Germanness” (Pedant17's word, I think), and the “Germanness” of his philosophy are interesting and appropriate subjects for discussion. These are just a handful of issues that must be addressed for a full understanding of Nietzsche's work. Pedant17 has pointed to the essay collection Nietzsche and the German Tradition as an example of professional philosophical literature that discusses these issues.
  • 2. Given Wikipedia's policy on original research, however, any (as Pedant17 says) “teasing out and discussing” of such topics in this article must be limited to describing what qualified commentators have said in published works.
  • 4.Those of us in favor of using the German label have pointed to numerous published works by respected Nietzsche scholars that use the label. We have also demonstrated that respected Nietzsche scholars introduce Nietzsche as a “German philosopher” in the lead of their articles and books. We have demonstrated clearly the "German" label is not only appropriate, but standard and supported by professional philosophical literature.
  • 5. Yet, Pedant17 argues “Wikipedia can do better." Pedant says “Piling up citations cannot resolve the underlying logical issues involved when we span 'professional' disciplines.” If I understand him/her correctly, Pedant feels that there are still too many “underlying logical issues”, ambiguities related to the word German, and questions about Nietzsche's “Germanness” for the label to be appropriate. We have provided our sources. If Pedant17 wants to see the German label removed, let him/her provide numerous published sources by professional philosophers that argue the same same point. Here's the challenge, Pedant17--show us a published journal article, a masters thesis, a PhD disertaion, or book that aruges that the “German” label is so problematic it should not be applied to Nietzsche.
  • 6. If Pendant17 cannot provide references for his/her argument, then his/her point amounts to original research. We do not do original research on Wikipedia.
  • 7. Therefore: If Pedant17 cannot cite numerous examples of professional philosophers supporting his/her argument, given the fact that we in favor of the German label have provided numerous examples of the label being used by prominent scholars in prominent works, including in the "lead" of articles and full books, the German label should stay and stay in the lead. If, however, Pedant can produce said examples I propose we remove the German label from the lead and use the article on Nietzsche from the Shorter Routledge as a model for how to use the term "German".
In response to:

I would like to see this issue resolved. This is my attempt to summarize the situation and propose a solution. Please do not intersperse text with these 7 points. Rather, I request that you comment following the final point.Fixer1234 (talk) 06:23, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

The proposed "solution" operates at cross-purposes with my contentions and fails to address the problems related to saddling Nietzsche with a nationalistic label. -- Pedant17 (talk) 04:51, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
In response to:
  • 3. Pedant17 has referred to the phrase \u201cGerman philosopher\u201d as an \u201cambiguous commonplace\u201d, \u201csimplistic\u201d, and as \u201cwidespread habit\u201d.
Unless we know the referent of "German" in the various uses of the phrase 'German hilosopher" it remains very unhelpful. -- Pedant17 (talk) 04:51, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
In response to:

Pedant17 has continued to do so as I have linked to examples of the label \u201cGerman Philosopher\u201d being used by respected professional philosophers.

The multiple examples demonstrate, if anything, the emptiness of the phrase. Unless individual authors -- whether "respected phiosophers" or not -- explain specifically what they mean by "German" or provide a clear context, we don't know what they mean by it -- if anything. -- Pedant17 (talk) 04:51, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
In response to:
Wikipedia has a specific guideline which applies to mentioning nationality (as opposed to ethnicity) in its article-leads. Does this sort of restriction apply to the other works referenced? Without parallel cases, the numerous citations seem of very marginal relevance. -- Pedant17 (talk) 04:51, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
In response to:
  • Such examples certainly suggest that proffesionals in the field feel the label has sufficient \u201cweight and accuracy\u201d.
What field? Biography? History? Philology? Philosophy? -- all of these have relevance for an article on Nietzsche. In which cases (if any) does the use of "German" apply with the rigor of the Wikipedia lead-guidelines? If we don't even know what the authors mean by their terminology, how can we assert that the phrase has sufficient "weight and accuracy" for anything other than the most general discussion of how scholars classify Nietzsche? -- Pedant17 (talk) 04:51, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
In response to:
  • 4.Those of us in favor of using the German label have pointed to numerous published works by respected Nietzsche scholars that use the label. We have also demonstrated that respected Nietzsche scholars introduce Nietzsche as a \u201cGerman philosopher\u201d in the lead of their articles and books. We have demonstrated clearly the "German" label is not only appropriate, but standard and supported by professional philosophical literature.
The favored traditional "label" has all the disadvantages and few of the advantages of a mere label: it may serve as an unthinking fossilized turn of speech which brushes aside the questions of Nietzsche's citizenship and of his philosophical school(s). At the very least it needs discussion; optimally we can avoid its pitfalls altogether. It remains questionable and inappropriate without further elucidation. Whatever its use in the "professional philosophical literature", it requires unpacking and questioning. -- Pedant17 (talk) 04:51, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
In response to:
  • 5. Yet, Pedant17 argues \u201cWikipedia can do better." Pedant says \u201cPiling up citations cannot resolve the underlying logical issues involved when we span 'professional' disciplines.\u201d If I understand him/her correctly, Pedant feels that there are still too many \u201cunderlying logical issues\u201d, ambiguities related to the word German, and questions about Nietzsche's \u201cGermanness\u201d for the label to be appropriate. We have provided our sources. If Pedant17 wants to see the German label removed, let him/her provide numerous published sources by professional philosophers that argue the same same point. Here's the challenge, Pedant17--show us a published journal article, a masters thesis, a PhD disertaion, or book that aruges that the \u201cGerman\u201d label is so problematic it should not be applied to Nietzsche.
The cited publications themselves do not explain what they mean: does "German philosopher" mean "a citizen of Germany who does philosophy" or "a cultural German who does philosophy" or "a member of some recognized trend which we might call 'German philosophy'" ? The interpretive dilemma seems obvious, and no inherently correct right answer exists. We need no external "evidence" confined to the precise demand of "so problematic it should not be applied to Nietzsche". If we take the issues into account we can of course -- in the context of our article -- discuss Nietzsche as a "German philosopher". But we have not yet done so systematically; and seem unlikely to do so within the limitations of a lead sentence/paragraph. -- Two out of the three interpretations that I have suggested do not apply or apply only questionably and marginally to Nietzsche. Let's try at least to avoid fostering unfacts within Wikipedia. -- Pedant17 (talk) 04:51, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
In response to:
  • 6. If Pendant17 cannot provide references for his/her argument, then his/her point amounts to original research. We do not do original research on Wikipedia.
The inherently unsatisfying proofs by absence appear (as pointed out previously on 2007-08-25) in the lack of nationality-obsession in the articles on Nietzsche in the Shorter Routledge and in the Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy. See: Edward Craid (editor): The Shorter Routledge encyclopedia of philosophy. Abingdon: Routledge, 2005, pages 726-741; and Simon Blackburn: The Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005, pages 252-253. -- Pedant17 (talk) 04:51, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
In response to:
  • 7. Therefore: If Pedant17 cannot cite numerous examples of professional philosophers supporting his/her argument, given the fact that we in favor of the German label have provided numerous examples of the label being used by prominent scholars in prominent works, including in the "lead" of articles and full books, the German label should stay and stay in the lead. If, however, Pedant can produce said examples I propose we remove the German label from the lead and use the article on Nietzsche from the Shorter Routledge as a model for how to use the term "German".
With all due respect to "professional philosophers", I wonder how many people the compilers of the millions of data-items in the regularly occurring multi-ethnic Prussian censuses from 1816 onwards (http://www.retrobibliothek.de/retrobib/seite.html?id=116366) classified as "German". Until we can ascertain what each philosopher and each historian means by the label "German" we cannot necessarily call upon them as evidence in assigning Nietzsche a nominal nationality in our Wikipedia-lead. We do not need to use the term "German" at all in our opening sentence. But if we do, let's use it in a clear and accurate manner. -- Pedant17 (talk) 04:51, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Possible solution

Pedant17 has been quite accommodating in presenting his rebuttals to any position other than his own. Months of silence regarding his points, in addition to an RfC, have not persuaded him that his is not the consensus position: he continues to argue that his position is in fact the correct one. I hope that the acrimony of this debate has not driven other editors away, for I hope that we are faced with a question that they can resolve.

For more than a year and a half now, Pedant17 has edited this page to remove statements to the effect of "Nietzsche was a German," denying that this constitutes a campaign to deny Nietzsche's being a German. In the past, this question has involved other editors. I wonder, is there any continued support for Pedant17's position, beyond Pedant17? If there is, this is a discussion we should have. If there is, and those agreeing with Pedant17 are turned off by the tone of the discussions that have taken place on this page and in edit summaries for months beyond many's memory, please speak up. As things stand, this appears to be the position of a lone editor.

It is possible that only Pedant17 shares the view which would justify his revisions to the lede of the article, even as others have agreed that the lede as it stands includes an unavoidable simplification. If this is in fact only a single editor denying a consensus that has been established at least a year and a half ago (and since then), there is no need to answer that editor's objections, unless he raises something that we have not considered, and consider worthy of consideration.

Pedant17 has on several occasions declared his willingness and eagerness for a debate on this subject. But we are not a debating club. My possible solution, indicated by the heading of this comment, is that we ignore Pedant17's comments until support for his position is demonstrated. One editor cannot demand that the community engage him in debate until he himself is satisfied with their decision, pursing his agenda every month until a sufficient number of editors cease from objecting to his campaign such that he can declare consensual victory. RJC Talk Contribs 05:31, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Nietzsche was, for all intents and purposes, German. The fact that he distanced himself from the Zeitgeist of German culture at the time and preferred to think of himself as a "Good European" is important, illuminating, and deserves to be discussed within the article. Such polemics, however, can no more change the basic fact of his national origin than my critiques of certain US policies can make me Canadian. Postmodern Beatnik (talk) 17:10, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
The repeated assertion that 'Nietzsche was, for all intents and purposes, German' does not advance the debate or address the issues. Though many consider him "German", the facts remain: Nietzsche held Prussian citizenship by birth (not German). Nietzsche renounced his Prussian citizenship and became a stateless person . Nietzsche remained a stateless person throughout the reat of his life, and especially and notably throughout all the period of his important and productive writing. Nietzsche spent the vast majority of his productive period living outside the new-fangled German Empire. Nietzsche worked in the traditions of German philosophy, but equally (if not more so) within the parameters of Danish and Classical Greek traditions. Nietzsche regarded himself, at least to some extent, as ethnically Polish. Nietzsche never held citizenship of the German Empire.
"[C]ritiques of certain ... policies " of the land of one's citizenship do not normally or necessarily make one a non-citizen. Official renunciation of one's citizenship in documentary proceeses may. The examples of Henry Kissinger and Madeleine Albright (to name but two) demonstrate the way in which we treat of persons who make their significant careers elsewhere than in the land of their birth or of their initial citizenship. Asserting that "Nietzsche was German" resembles trying to label Madeleine Albright as Czech (rather than Czecho-Slovak or Czechoslovakian or Bohemian-Moravian) merely because the place of her origin later changed its state-affiliation and its boundaries and its name a few times.
-- Pedant17 (talk) 03:47, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
To begin, I have only stated that "Nietzsche was, for all intents and purposes, German" once. It is disingenuous to call it a "repeated assertion." Moreover, it is not an uncommon practice to open with one's position and elaborate further on, allowing readers to understand immediately where one is coming from. Moving on...
You are focusing quite a bit on the fact that Nietzsche was born Prussian and never held citizenship of the later-created German Empire. But you are ignoring several pertinent facts about Prussia itself: (1) Prior to the unification of Germany, Prussia was recognized as one of the German principalities. Indeed, it has its humble origins in the German state of Brandenburg and once had Berlin as its capital. (2) Prussia was always considered the major state of "northern Germany" when "German" was primarily a regional descriptor (rather than primarily a state descriptor, though even still the term "Germanic" betrays its regional colorings). (3) Prussians saw no problem in thinking of themselves as German when they formed and largely controlled the North German Confederation. (4) The unification of Germany was undertaken by Prussia (under Otto von Bismarck), and it was Prussia that created the German Empire.
As such, I also find your attempted analogy with Madeleine Albright to be flawed. This is not merely a case of one's place of birth falling under someone else's control or changing state-affiliation. Prussia was the progenitor of modern Germany. And it created by addition, not division. Moreover, I have already stated that the finer points of Nietzsche's thoughts on nationality deserve to be mentioned within the article, as they are. The subject even has its own heading (which it absolutely deserves).
Finally, Nietzsche's polemics against the Germany and Germans are part of his "complex relationship" with his nationality. As such, my point about critiquing one's own country seems relevant insofar as one might be tempted to use his polemics as "evidence" against calling Nietzsche "German." Postmodern Beatnik (talk) 14:33, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

The "repeated assertion" of Nietzsche's Germanness

We find the sentiment repeatedly on this talk-page:

  • "...Nietzsche was a German by every measure by which we call other people Germans at the same time." (2007-07-31)
  • "... nothing could be more clear than that Nietzsche is a German philosopher, that he should be described as such ... " (2007-08-23)
  • "Nietzsche was, for all intents and purposes, German." (2008-03-18)

And in the edit summaries:

  • "Nietzsche was a German philosopher, just like Kant, Hegel, etc." (2007-07-31)

Not to mention the numerous quotations from books briefly setting a context: "N. was a German philosopher" -- before going on to talk about his childhood or his ideas...

Assertions without supporting material remain unsupported assertions. I have no objections to stating a position, but one needs to support it. "Where one is coming from" seems completely irrelevant to discussion of the intrinsic merits of a case. -- Pedant17 (talk) 02:26, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

We find the sentiment repeatedly on this talk-page
Yes, but you were talking to me, and I'd only said it once. The fact of my opinion is not in any way diminished by it being a shared opinion.
Context! I responded to the latest in a series of similar opinions. -- Pedant17 (talk) 03:21, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
"Where one is coming from" seems completely irrelevant to discussion of the intrinsic merits of a case.
Apart from being foolishly hostile, the above comment entirely ignores the context of my response. It's just good form to say "here's my opinion, and here's why." Yes, I opened with my opinion—that's not a crime. Postmodern Beatnik (talk) 14:50, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
Let me repeat: "Where one is coming from" seems completely irrelevant to discussion of the intrinsic merits of a case. Opinions (as such) of Wikipedians count for nothing: they must find support in facts and in valid logic. Putting one's opinion up front may work well in verbal rhetorical situations, but here in written form it runs the risk (as here) of overstating the case ("all intents and purposes") and getting readily rubbished in consequence. Fellow-Wikipedians have no interest in where people "are coming from" -- they have interests only in enhancing articles. If adequate arguments support an opinion, well and good. If they don't, we've wasted bandwidth. -- Pedant17 (talk) 03:21, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Citizenship, Prussia, and Germany

The focus on Nietzsche's citizenship comes about from the Wikipedia guideline in the Wikipedia Manual of Style for biographies, which as of 2008-04-07 states: "The opening paragraph should give: ... 3. Nationality ... In the normal case this will mean the country of which the person is a citizen or national, or was a citizen when the person became notable." By the time Nietzsche had become notable he had renounced the only citizenship he had ever held (Prussian) and become stateless.

As to the "pertinent facts about Prussia":

1. The assertion that "Prior to the unification of Germany, Prussia was recognized as one of the German principalities" tendentiously stresses the German nature of Prussia with unverifiable weasel words ("was recognized" -- recognized by whom?). If one thinks in pan-German terms, of course Prussia seems like a German principality. But one can also recall that the original Prussia lay well outside the German area; that one can think of Prussia as a North European or Baltic state; and that Prussia for many years before 1871 counted as a Great Power in its own right -- regardless of one's attitutde to the archaic or future notion of a "Germany". In summary: "Prussian" can mean "German" -- but not necessarily so. We can more accurately treat the young Nietzsche as Prussian rather than German (and the mature Nietzsche as stateless rather than German).

The fact that Prussia had "its humble origins in the German state of Brandenburg and once had Berlin as its capital", though true, does not seem of great relevance. Russia once had relatively humble origins in the Kiev region and once had Kiew as its capital. So what? Does that mean that we should regard Muscovy as Ukrainian? -- The Prussian state had Berlin as its capital continuously from the invention of Brandenburg-Prussia to the disappearence of the Prussian state in the 1940s -- with the exception of a period of Napoleonic occupation when the Prussian capital shifted to Koenigsberg (now Kaliningrad in Russia). Does that mean that we class Prussia as a Soviet or Russian state in Nietzsche's day? -- I suspect not.

2. The claim that "Prussia was always considered the major state of "northern Germany" when "German" was primarily a regional descriptor (rather than primarily a state descriptor...)" appears a little too sweeping. Brandenburg hardly figured in the German lands until well into the Middle Ages, and Prussia proper lay outside the Holy Roman Empire and under Polish-Lithuanian suzerainity until even more recently. At various times one could regard Saxony or the Netherlands or even Sweden as the major state of the Northern German lands. Once again, if one starts thinking in terms of "Germany" or "Northern Germany" one imposes a modern concept on an earlier reality. -- Nor can we treat "Germanic" as a useful "regional" term. The Vandal kingdom in North Africa counts as Germanic. The Goths in the Crimea count as Germanic. Let's not muddy the waters by expanding Nietzsche's associations unjustifiably.

3. The suggestion that "Prussians saw no problem in thinking of themselves as German when they formed and largely controlled the North German Confederation" needs qualification. Prussia happily co-opted German nationalism to its own imperial policy. Did that make the Prussians less Prussian and more German? It seems debatable. -- By the same token, we could say that citizens of the United States had no trouble in thinking of themselves as Natonians when they formed and largely controlled the North Atlantic Treaty Organization... or as Naftans once they formed and dominated NAFTA.

4. The claim that "[t]he unification of Germany was undertaken by Prussia (under Otto von Bismarck), and it was Prussia that created the German Empire" seems unexceptionable. But one becomes wary of claims of historical creationism. Look a little more closely at the so-called "German Empire" in 1871 -- in theory as in reality a federation or confederation of independent states with their own governments, parliaments, courts and diplomats -- even citizenships. The Bavarian army retained a separate identity into the First Wold War. And Prussia itself remained a separate, self-governing entity -- dominating but not entirely integrated into the Second German Empire -- throughout the life of that concept. And today, we still occasionally speak of France or of Italy, even though they have become part of something called the European Union. -- If we want to speak of Nietzsche's birth-citizenship, "Prussian" conveys much more detail and accuracy than "German".

The Madeleine Albright analogy

Perhaps I should spell this out.

Prussia did indeed act as the 'progenitor' of modern Germany. But it assembled the various states into the Second Reich by treaty of alliance, not by addition to its territory. The result did not bear the name of "Greater Prussia" or "New Prussia", and Prussia itself continued to exist and function -- largely unchanged. So much for historical details of 1871, though: Madeleine Albright appears in Wikipedia without a blatant nationality/citizenship tag in the lead of her article (compare the emigre philosophers Karl Marx and George Santayana), which article goes on to detail that she became a US-citizen in 1957 (about the age of 20). The parallel with Nietzsche seems apparent: he became a stateless person at the age of 24. Bickering as to whether to call him (initially, at least) Prussian or German has as little relevance to his career as a stateless person as arguing as to whether to characterize Albight's tenure as US Secretary of State as Czech or as Czecho-Slovak in nature. The details of the subsequent careers of their birthplaces, in each case, have little to no bearing on the matter. The distinction between change by addition and change by division seems quite irrelevant to me. -- Pedant17 (talk) 02:26, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

On critiquing "one's own country"

Nietzsche, in critiquing things German, did not attack his own country: he had no country in any legal sense. The Prussian Saxony of his youth and Professor Nietzsche himself had gone separate ways. The good professor had enough friends and family and cultural background to know the new Germany -- and enough detachment and separation to criticize it. -- Pedant17 (talk) 02:26, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Friedrich_Nietzsche/Archive_11&oldid=951178568"